Human-Wild Animal Conflict: One Of The Greatest Threats To Wildlife

Human-Wild Animal Conflict: One Of The Greatest Threats To Wildlife

The coexistence of humans and wildlife has long been a part of our planet’s natural order. However, as human populations expand and encroach upon wildlife habitats, human-wild animal conflicts have become a pressing and escalating concern. These conflicts are fueled by competition for resources, loss of habitat, and human activities that inadvertently bring people and wildlife into closer proximity. This article delves into the multifaceted issue of human-wild animal conflict, exploring its causes, consequences, and potential solutions.

Human-wildlife conflict (HWC) is critical threats of globally endangered species, such as the Sumatran tiger (Pantheratigris sumatrae) and the Asian lion (Panthera leo persica), but some species such as snow leopard (Uncia uncia) and the Red colobus monkey (Procolocus kirkii) which is less endangered. Sanctuary and National parks are the important for the conservation of such types of endangered species (Bruner et al., 2001). Equally, protected areas often only protect a part of an ecosystem or species range, and wildlife dispersal from such areas may increase conflict with man (Woodroffe and Ginsberg, 1998). Even as alternative forms of land use, such as wildlife tourism, are implemented in an attempt to derive sustainable benefits from wildlife, conflict may remain (Roe et al., 1997; Goodwin et al., 1998). Major species of wild animals exposed to conflict, lead to be more prone to extinction (Ogada et al., 2003) because of injury and death caused by humans, also by road accident and railways accident. Some wild animals falling into well during capture, and also by shooting and poison. These human activities not only reduced the population of endangered species but it also negative impact on environmental condition especially disturbance of ecosystem and biodiversity preservation. Human-wildlife conflicts affect the human welfare, health, safety, economic and social costs. It also increases the chance of zoonotic disease by injury and contact.

DEFINITION

Human–wildlife conflict is defined by the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) as “any interaction between humans and wildlife that results in negative impacts on human social, economic or cultural life, on the conservation of wildlife populations, or on the environment. Human – Wildlife Conflict (HWC) is defined as ‘interaction between humans and wildlife where negative consequences, whether perceived or real, exists for one or both the parties when action of one has an adverse effect on the other party’. It has been in existence for as long as wild animals and humans have co-existed and shared the same resources.

BRIEF HISTORY ABOUT HUMAN-WILDLIFE CONFLICT

Crocodiles have an ancient lineage dating back to the Mesozoic era, and have remained functionally unchanged for longer than the human species has been in existence. It is likely that crocodiles have attacked and eaten humans and their predecessors in Africa over the last four million years. Human-elephant conflict is as old as agriculture in Africa (Treves and Naughton-Treves, 1999). San or Bushman rock art in Africa frequently portrays people fleeing from predators or other large animals. Pre-colonial and early nineteenth century historians describe areas in Africa and other parts of the world where elephants invaded human cultivations, causing food shortages and leading to the displacement of settlements (Barnes, 1996). Some authors blame colonialism for ruining traditionally harmonious relations between wildlife and local people (Adams and McShane, 1992).

CAUSES OF HUMAN-WILD ANIMAL CONFLICTS:

§ Habitat fragmentation: on the fragment of habitat cause to shrinkage of wildlife area lead to wild animal migrate from own habitat to human habitat because of searching of space, food and shelter. As result, increases the chance of human wild animals conflict.

§ Encroachment in the forest lands by local people has resulted in shrinkage of wildlife habitats especially on the fringes which has increased the pressure on the limited natural resources in the forest areas.

§ The incidences of man- wild animal conflict also increase by the disturbance of wild animals its own habitat during collection of fuel wood, fodder. Also increased the chances of conflict by increasing the cultivation area in wildlife habitat.

§ It is observed that the local people have to go deeper and deeper, year by year for fetching firewood and other forest produce for their bonafide use, because of degradation of forests in the fringes. This has increased the number of incidences of man-animal conflict.

§ Infestation of wildlife habitat by the invasive exotic weeds like Lantana, Eupatorium and Parthenium have resulted in decreased availability of edible grasses for the wild herbivores. As a result, herbivores come out of forest area and cause depredation of agricultural crops on the fringes

§ Most incidences of man-animal conflicts are noticed during summer when water becomes scarce. The livestock and wild animals have to share the limited water sources on the fringes or inside forest. Human interference with the natural drainage system in forest areas and diversion of water towards habitation has further complicated the issue.

§ Decreased prey base caused by poaching of herbivores has resulted in carnivores moving out of forest in search of prey and indulge in cattle lifting.

 

Understanding Human-Wild Animal Conflict

Human-wild animal conflict refers to the direct or indirect negative interactions between humans and wildlife that result from the sharing of resources or habitats. These interactions can take various forms, such as property damage, crop raiding, livestock predation, and even attacks on humans by wild animals. Such conflicts can occur in urban, rural, and wilderness areas, affecting both human communities and wildlife populations.

Causes of Human-Wild Animal Conflict

1. Habitat Loss and Fragmentation: One of the primary causes of human-wild animal conflict is the loss of natural habitats due to urbanization, agriculture, and infrastructure development. Fragmented landscapes force wildlife into smaller areas, increasing the likelihood of interactions with humans.
2. Competition for Resources: The escalating demand for land, water, and food resources often leads to conflicts between humans and wildlife, particularly in areas where these resources are limited.
3. Crop Depredation: Many wild animals, such as elephants, deer, and birds, are known to raid crops, causing significant financial losses for farmers. Crop depredation is a major driver of conflict in agricultural regions.
4. Livestock Predation: Predatory animals, such as big cats, wolves, and hyenas, often target livestock for easy prey. This leads to economic losses for livestock keepers and exacerbates conflicts with wildlife.
5. Human Safety Concerns: Encounters with potentially dangerous animals, such as large carnivores, can pose serious safety risks to humans. Such incidents create fear and hostility toward wildlife.

Consequences of Human-Wild Animal Conflict

The consequences of human-wild animal conflict are wide-ranging and often have far-reaching impacts on both human communities and wildlife populations.

Economic Losses

1. Crop and Livestock Damage: Farmers and livestock keepers suffer financial losses due to crop and livestock damage. This can lead to reduced income and food insecurity.
2. Property Damage: Wildlife intrusions into human settlements can result in damage to property, including homes, vehicles, and infrastructure.

Livelihood and Food Security

1. Livelihood Disruption: Human-wild animal conflicts can disrupt the livelihoods of people who depend on farming, livestock rearing, or other activities in conflict-prone areas.
2. Food Insecurity: Crop raiding and livestock predation can reduce the availability of food, leading to insecurity and reliance on external aid.

Human Health and Safety

1. Injuries and Fatalities: Direct confrontations with wildlife can lead to injuries and fatalities among humans. For instance, encounters with large carnivores can be deadly.
2. Psychological Impact: Living in constant fear of wildlife, especially for those in conflict-prone areas, can have a significant psychological impact, causing stress and anxiety.

Wildlife Conservation

1. Poaching and Retribution Killings: As a response to conflicts, some communities resort to retaliatory killings of problem animals. This not only affects local wildlife populations but also undermines conservation efforts.
2. Habitat Fragmentation: Encroachments into natural habitats for human settlements and agriculture contribute to habitat fragmentation, impacting wildlife migratory patterns and genetic diversity.

III. Managing Human-Wild Animal Conflict

Efforts to mitigate human-wild animal conflict are essential to ensure the peaceful coexistence of humans and wildlife. Effective management strategies must consider the complexities of the issue and engage local communities, conservation organizations, and governments.

Preventive Measures

1. Habitat Preservation: Protecting and conserving natural habitats is crucial to reducing the likelihood of conflict. This includes establishing wildlife corridors to allow animals to move freely and safely.
2. Land-Use Planning: Effective land-use planning can help minimize human-wild animal interactions by designating specific areas for human activities and others for wildlife conservation.
3. Crop Protection: Implementing crop protection measures such as fencing, guard animals, and deterrents can reduce crop raiding by wildlife.
4. Livestock Management: Encouraging better livestock management practices, such as secure enclosures and the use of guardian animals, can help reduce livestock losses.

Mitigation Techniques

1. Early Warning Systems: Developing and implementing early warning systems, such as sirens or mobile apps, can alert communities to the presence of dangerous wildlife, allowing them to take precautions.
2. Compensation Schemes: Providing compensation to individuals who experience losses due to wildlife conflict can help reduce hostility and financial hardship.
3. Education and Awareness: Educating local communities about wildlife behavior and how to coexist peacefully with wildlife can be effective in minimizing conflict.
4. Relocation and Translocation: In some cases, problem animals can be safely relocated or translocated to reduce conflict.

Long-Term Conservation Initiatives

1. Habitat Restoration: Restoration efforts to rehabilitate degraded habitats and create wildlife corridors can help mitigate human-wild animal conflict in the long term.
2. Community-Based Conservation: Engaging local communities in conservation efforts and ensuring that they benefit from wildlife-related activities can create a sense of stewardship and reduce conflicts.
3. Sustainable Development: Encouraging sustainable livelihoods, such as eco-tourism or sustainable agriculture, can provide economic alternatives and reduce the dependence on resources that attract wildlife.

Case Studies in Human-Wild Animal Conflict Management

To illustrate the diverse approaches taken to address human-wild animal conflict, consider the following case studies:

The Elephant-Human Conflict in India

In India, the conflict between elephants and humans has intensified due to the encroachment of human settlements into elephant habitats. Conservation organizations have implemented various measures, including the use of trained elephants and their mahouts to drive wild elephants away from human settlements. Additionally, efforts have been made to create safe corridors for elephant migration.

Wolf Reintroduction in Yellowstone National Park

The reintroduction of wolves in Yellowstone National Park faced initial opposition due to concerns about livestock predation. However, over time, the presence of wolves has had a positive impact on the ecosystem by controlling the elk population and rejuvenating plant life. This successful reintroduction demonstrates the importance of long-term conservation initiatives.

PREVENTIVE STRATEGIES

Artificial and Natural Barriers: Barriers have main function of preventing spatial overlapping among wild animals and local people or communities. Barriers are two types natural and artificial.

Natural– Rivers, coasts or mountain ranges fencing (Vijayan and Pati, 2002).

Artificial—- Rubble walls and barbed wire

Fladry barrier is a technique traditionally used in Eastern Europe and Russia to hunt wolves. It consists of hanging flags from ropes, placed a short distance above the ground and spaced 0.5m apart; nowadays it is employed to protect domestic animals from wolf attacks (Musiani et al., 2003). Alternative barriers have been sought, for instance planted hedgerows of various spiny cacti and moat. Plant hedges have the positive aspects of being a low cost solution and are effective with both carnivores and ungulates. On the other hand, they are very slow to establish, do not deter baboons and elephants and are often made of exotic species, which can spread uncontrollably, (Hoare, 1992). It is clear that physical barriers are not always an economical management practice. They frequently require additional labour from farmers and their family members and never ensure complete protection. The reason for this failure can be explained by the behaviour of different animal species. Burrowing animals for instance, breach the barrier and permit access to other species, as Hoare (1992) mentions, lions can use holes that have been dug by warthogs (Phacochoerus spp.). In Rajasthan, India, where stonewall,mud and brushwood fences were constructed, farmers claimed that nilgai (Boselaphus tragocamelus) could easily jump over the fence of 1.5 m in height and wild boar (Sus scrofa) were able to dig beneath them to get into fields (Sekhar,1998).

Guarding

Monitoring herds and active defense are essential features of animal husbandry in East Africa, where human herders are effective and fearless in warding off predators. In this region, herders are reported to challenge and scare away dangerous carnivores such as lions, hyenas and cheetahs with nothing more than simple weapons like spears, knifes or firearms (Patterson et al., 2004). Northern Kenya, the presence of human guards, dogs and human activity were associated with lower rates of livestock attacks by large predators (Ogada et al., 2003). Guarding is also a popular preventative strategy in some parts of India. In this region, the majority of the farmers ranked guarding as the most efficient and common measure to protect their crops, despite requiring additional labour at night (Sekhar, 1998). According to Treves and Karanth (2003b), the utilization of domestic guard dogs appear to be a successful strategy for managing predation risk from coyotes, black bears (Ursus maritimus) and even cheetahs, but less effective with wolves and grizzly bears (Ursus arctos). Although the effectiveness of this defence practice is dependent on humans also being present to ensure that the dogs remain with the livestock. In North America dogs are often left alone to safeguard domestic animals and are not as effective as in Europe and North Asia where shepherds and ranchers work directly with their dogs (Musiani et al., 2003).

Relocation

Voluntary Human Population Resettlement Where alternative land and incentives are available, relocation of local communities to areas offering better access to natural resources and socio-economic opportunities can be an adequate solution to HWC (Madhusudan, 2003). In fact, resettlement scheme aiming to prevent the overlap between wildlife and people, can be successful in the long run if some essential assumptions are met: firstly, the villagers should gain substantial benefits, such as better access to resources, secondly, they should be relocated to an area where the risk of losing property is lower and thirdly, they should not face any political, social and cultural opposition (Treves and Karanth, 2003b).

Waste Management Systems that Restrict Wildlife Access to Refuse:

Good standards of waste management are important to avoid attracting wild animals to human settlements and to prevent wild populations being augmented and artificially sustained by human induced food availability. Each stage of waste handling should be addressed, from collection to transportation to disposal.

MITIGATIVE STRATEGIES

Compensation Systems: HWC carries significant economic costs to humans and compensation is a measure which aims to alleviate conflict by reimbursing people for their losses. Compensation systems rely on giving out monetary payments or licenses to exploit natural resources, allowing the hunting of game or the collection of fuel wood, timber and fodder from inside protected areas. Of the two methods, financial compensation is a very contentious issue and the least popular due to its inefficiency and low rate of reimbursement. This is a reality in many developing countries, which face budget constraints and usually pay on an irregular basis and to a limited extent. The second compensation scheme, also known as the “settlement of rights” to use natural resources, appears to be a more practical solution, as the following case studies demonstrate. An alternative approach, the “settlement of rights”, appears to be a better strategy. It fixes a quota of commodities that can be exploited, it clearly demarcates reserve zones that are accessible to local villagers and it legitimizes their rights to those resources. Indeed, the benefits derived from the legitimate collection of natural resources influence the attitudes and perceptions of rural residents towards wildlife and conservation, while promoting responsibility and awareness (Sekhar, 1998). Insurance Programme: Livestock and crop insurance is often proposed as an innovative solution to mitigating the impact of HWC, but it is yet to be experimented broadly. It covers crops and livestock from the risk of wildlife attacks and involves the villagers and local governing bodies paying a premium share of the insurance and allows rural inhabitants to make a minimum annual cost and to be refunded in the event of crop or livestock losses. In addition, the local governing bodies or the forest department are relieved of significant financial expenses, from not having to administer compensation schemes (Madhusudan, 2003). Incentive Programmes: Incentive programmes are based on subsidies. They offset the cost of conservation and demand the adoption of conservation-friendly practices, creating tolerance towards wildlife through the exchange of benefits. Two interesting incentive programmes have been developed in India and Mongolia, where agro pastoralists and pastoralists live within the snow leopard’s territory (Mishra et al., 2003).In India in the state of Himachal Pradesh, the programme succeeded in reducing the forage overlap among wild herbivores and livestock through the clearance of an area of 500 ha from livestock grazing and other human use. The villagers received financial benefits for their loss of herding land and the money was used for collective work. As a consequence, wild herbivore densities increased, resulting in more naturally available prey for predators and thus reducing the pressure of carnivores on livestock (Mishra et al., 2003). In Mongolia, the programme did not permit pastoralists to poach the snow leopard and its prey. The programme itself is expected to grow rapidly, also because marketing opportunities for the handicrafts are opening. However one weakness of the incentives programme is the need for subsidies from external sources, from either conservation funds or governments (Mishra et al., 2003).

COMMUNITY BASED NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SCHEMES (CBNRMS)

A CBNRMS has been established in the Caprivi region of Namibia, where the ecotourism industry and hunting concessions are potentially valuable for developing a local economy based on wildlife related revenues. This scheme entails a system of returning benefits to rural communities in order to motivate them to protect wildlife outside protected areas and to discourage poaching; it is still at an early stage, but it is expected to have a real potential in mitigating the conflict (Rodwell et al., 2000). Regulated Harvest: in many regions, HWC is managed by hunting. This is a low cost technique and has the potential to raise public tolerance towards wildlife. The money raised from the sale of licenses can fund conservation activities and the protection of human settlement (Treves and Karanth, 2003b). To be viewed as a legitimate management practice, hunting needs to be based on scientific monitoring that ensures sustainable harvests and it needs to be regulated by policies that address the timing, location and methods of hunting, as well as the distribution of benefits to all stakeholders. In reality, lethal control is considered to be an expedient to satisfy the aggrieved party and reasons for scientific skepticism are due to the lack of selection of target animals to be eliminated. As a result the individual animals killed are often not responsible for depredation and after their removal other individuals can cause trouble in the same location. It is assumed that regulated harvest is not effective in reducing crop and livestock losses and it is also likely to increase the risk of further losses when dangerous carnivores are wounded instead of being killed (Treves and Karanth, 2003).

Wildlife Translocation: Translocation consists of moving a certain number of animals from a problematic zone to a new site. In spite of seeming to be the least sensible of the solutions listed above and the risk of exporting the problem to another site, it may be a practical and acceptable approach in some cases and where there is the availability of a suitable habitat with territorial vacancies. Translocation works well when isolated individuals are unable to survive or reproduce because they are too distant from the main population and need to be moved back to their own group; or when a high density population needs to be reduced through the relocation of individuals (Treves and Karanth, 2003). In most cases the conflict cannot be avoided and translocation does not seem to be an immediate and straightforward solution. However, it is encouraging that the conflict can be minimized through good management practices and housekeeping principles, such as livestock protection at night, property guarding or avoidance of a predator’s home territory. It is also reassuring that some of the successful measures involve low technology tools and low cost approaches such as pens with chain link ceilings, man-made salt ponds, fladry barriers and insurance programmes. To control poaching: restrict the illegal hunting of wild animals should be stop to maintain the equilibrium of ecosystem.

To stop monoculture and increase number of edibles miscellaneous species: Plant monoculture of species like teak should be avoided. Instead mixed plantations of miscellaneous, bamboo and fruit species can be considered. This will provide more food for animals in the forest, hiding shelter to animals as well as provide food for most herbivores. Prohibition of fragmentation of wildlife habitat: for construction of dams, long canals for irrigation and Highways through the forest areas, then the prohibit fragmentation of wildlife habitat with proper care should be taken. The connectivity of wild animals should not be disturbed. As results, animals cannot pass these canals and roads easily and they are localized and their natural balance is disturbed.

Providing LPG to villagers:

LPG should be provided to those villagers who frequently go to the forest areas specially wildlife habitats to search fuel wood for their chullahs as results to stop the human wildlife conflicts. Awareness Raising: People should be made more and more aware through meetings and pamphlets etc. They should not go deep into the forest areas. If they have to go then they should go in groups and they should keep talking to each other to detract the wild animals. School children in vulnerable villages should be educated about the importance of wildlife and human conflicts

CONCLUSION

It is concluded that the human wild animal conflict very critical threat to wild animals as well as human. It causes more economically loss in term of crop and treatment of human and animals. They are also responsible for extinction of species. The proper preventive strategy and mitigation are adopted to control human wild animal conflict.

Human-wild animal conflict is a growing global concern that poses challenges to human well-being and wildlife conservation. It is a complex issue with multifaceted causes, consequences, and solutions. Effective conflict management requires a combination of preventive measures, mitigation techniques, and long-term conservation efforts. Collaboration between local communities, governments, and conservation organizations is crucial to achieving a harmonious coexistence between humans and wildlife, where both can thrive in their respective environments. By addressing this issue comprehensively, we can ensure the protection of our planet’s biodiversity and safeguard the welfare of those living in conflict-prone areas.

Compiled  & Shared by- This paper is a compilation of groupwork provided by the

Team, LITD (Livestock Institute of Training & Development)

 Image-Courtesy-Google

 Reference-On Request.

Understanding the Human-Elephant conflict in India: